Wilander about Rederer - Interesting find Funny!!!

Wilander created a minor controversy during the 2006 French Open when he criticized several top players, including Roger Federer and Kim Clijsters, as lacking the competitive edge to beat their toughest rivals. After Federer's 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6 loss to Nadal in the final, Wilander said that "Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls... you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."
In the aftermath of these comments, fans coined the neologism "Wilanders" as a humorous synonym for "balls", denoting a competitive spirit and tenacity to win.

Wilander created a minor controversy during the 2006 French Open when he criticized several top players, including Roger Federer and Kim Clijsters, as lacking the competitive edge to beat their toughest rivals. After Federer's 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6 loss to Nadal in the final, Wilander said that "Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls... you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."
In the aftermath of these comments, fans coined the neologism "Wilanders" as a humorous synonym for "balls", denoting a competitive spirit and tenacity to win.

I find Wilander's comment to be more relevant after last French Open (down in three), Wimbledon, and Australian Open. Definitely Roger does have a mental block when playing Rafa, being unable to take advantage of so many break chances. Not sure about shrinking balls, but it is funny.

On the other hand, Roger has become sexually active as we all know, maybe there is some truth to it now, LOL...

I've actually seen the video of the interview...Wilander wasn't drunk, but it was a very long interview covering a lot of ground and he was drinking a beer at the time...

What I've never heard anyone mention in the threads and discussions surrounding this topic is that during the course of talking about Federer having no balls against Nadal (by which he basically meant that Fed didn't have the courage or fortitude to do what he had to do in order to win, against Nadal only)...Wilander admitted straight out that he played Wimbledon every time with no balls himself.

He said he served and volleyed at Wimbledon because everyone said that you had to serve and volley there to win. He never really believed in it himself, but he did it anyway. He didn't really commit to it mentally though...he played with no balls. The same way Federer played in 2006.

fed played the same games against everyone. he wins most, but can't win against Nadal. and Fed doesn't do anything about it and still plays the same way and still lose to Nadal. Wilander is right.

Click to expand...

yes, wilander pegged it in 2006 when most people would have said it's too early to tell what's going to happen. Hoodjem's "ruminating" is a good word for what happens in their matches. But it all comes out of nadal's ability to impose his game on federer. It's no longer believable that federer is going to solve nadal on the fly.

wilander knows what hes talking about. he also predicted that nadals gonna win wimbledon before federer manages to win the french open.
john mcenroe on the other hand seems to know nothing about tennis. makes u wonder sometimes.. he talks utter nonsense.
he was so surprized when nadal won an indoors tournament on carpet even after doing well on grass and fast hard courts. he predicted that nadal couldnt win on carpet